Secret In The Dirt - Golf's Greatest Social Network

Timothy Goynes wrote:


Simply why?

Cy wrote:

Being too flat is better than being too upright.

Good players will adjust to the tool, flat tools have you working toward yourself, too upright is up and out of it.

Martin Ayers wrote:


Exactly. I'm paraphrasing Bradley here, but here goes:

When we swing a golf club, we are naturally trying to make the sole of the club hit flat on the ground...simply because toe and heel digs don't feel very good--at least off of real turf! Off the mats in the store, everything feels the same.

So you're in the store trying out new clubs. Everything in the store, whether you realize it or not, is far more upright than it would have been 20, 30 years ago. Why? Simple: Because most golfers slice the ball. When you swing an upright club on a mat, the heel hits first and drags while the toe slams over (again, remember on mats it is near impossible to discern that this is happening), and you watch on the monitor as you hit the first draw of your life. "Wow! I must have these clubs!" you say. So you buy them.

Now you take them out to the golf course. All of a sudden, off of real turf those heel hits feel pretty awful, and usually those draws turn into flat-out hooks (because the heel will dig a lot farther into turf than a mat). So now you try to get the sole to hit flat. The only way to do that with an upright club is to stand up through impact (which generally stalls out your pivot) and throw the arms down--rather than out--from your shoulders. Now you've got a very timing-dependent motion, with the propensity to miss in any direction. When your arms become fully extended--as they would be at impact if your clubs are upright--you have no more control over the club...it's pulling you with its own momentum. And if you've done anything wrong at some point in the swing, it will be pulling you in a direction you don't want to go.

Flat lies are just the opposite. Even tall players can use flatter lies, because we can (and should!) be compressing our bodies into the ground on the downswing. Look at Hogan, Norman, Trevino, Knudson, Snead, Nelson, Nicklaus...any great ballstriker...and you'll see that they get SHORTER in transition, rather than stand up. They retain--even slightly increase--their knee flex all the way through impact. The club works around them rather than down from them. You are encouraged to keep your pivot happening through impact and beyond, and the club ain't pulling you around until well after the ball is gone. This is something even a tall player can do...Grady Dickens is a good example, being 6'4".

Flat lies also help take away the left side of the golf course. You can really go after it with a flat lie and not worry so much about hooking the ball. Most misses will be out to the right. It's very easy to plot your way around a golf course when you know where your usual miss is.

You might counter with "Well upright clubs take away the right side of the course, so what's the difference?" That would only be true IF you still stayed shorter in transition like you would with a flatter lie angle, and got that heel to drag and close the face. As it is, though, most people are trying to hit the sole flat on the ground, and with an upright lie you have to do so much compensatory work just to do so, that you are liable to hit the ball in any direction.

Well said Tim.

My MP67 4 iron is 54* - my 5 iron is 55* = all that way up to my PW at 60*

I can't even look at a modern iron with a std lie angle let alone hit one...

ZM.

Does anybody know the specifications of Jack Nicklaus clubs vs. Hogan's? Thanks.

Dariusz Jedrzejewski wrote:


Listen to what DJ is saying here this is cmotion and SPC. I start with the ligaments in my fingers cause thats all that is in them is ligaments. That is about as simple as you can do it. As for the major joints I don't think about them they don't let me down I know that. As for being a seeker as DJ said that is what my seeking lead me to in 2006. After that there was no need to look anywhere for anything. At peace is dead accurate DJ. I only think about golf if I'm fixing to do it. I don't sit around practice in the mirror anymore. I realize cause of my ligaments it's there and never leaving ever. I practice mOre for the workout there's none better. The ligaments have only good habits so I understand you just cannot mess it up. What my muscles do is what there told this way.

Cy wrote:


Yes jacks we're upright and he blew out his hip and he always said he wished he hit it like Ben. Cy flat is the better by far of the two. Shaft points at or below naval is a great angle. It's not a must at all to have flat shafts. It's just makes life a lot easier.

Cy,

I have been told by a reliable source that Hogan's irons were 5 degrees flat. Don't know about Jack's !

Lane

Dariusz,
I was helping my friend Carl with his swing tonight and decided to hit a few Drivers to see how my right calf was coming along from the injury. We got into a discussion about the release move and Carl had an interesting question about whether or not I was compressing my sagital plane with the front or back of my body …he never used sagital plane but he was thinking that he should use his pecs to smash the ball…. He thought his pecs or front of his body should be compressed. Nobody had ever asked me that question and I had never really tried it so I gave him a demo of his idea versus how I do it to see which would be better for me….thought maybe his idea would be better. On the experiment with the front side of my body compressed I internally rotated my shoulders during my release move and my follow through was rather abbreviated as you can see at the end of the video. On the one where I compressed the back of my body with external rotation of my shoulder joints, I got a better follow through and got to a complete finish. I was wondering about what you thought about this experiment and if you thought the front or back side of the body should be compressed. My right calf felt pretty good on these few swings but I will keep ramping up really slow especially with the Driver...still not putting the pedal to the medal with the Driver yet.
Thanks,
Rock

Rock, but of course. It is called in my world the impact compression stage. It is different than e.g. transition because the orientation of the motion is the same and there is no stall to help the compression.
The whole phenomenon is described here:
biokineticgolfswing.blogspot.com/2010/04...ncept-part_6275.html
One can also read some articles (e.g. written by Sasho McKenzie) about the parametric acceleration phenomenon.

I wouldn't ever recommend anyone to think about it more than it is necessary to understand the mertits. Correct pivot do the job itself. And we already know what are keys to correctly executed pivot from the ground up and from the core out.

Cheers

Lee,
Ben Hogan's flat lie angles on his clubs definitely has my attention now. I am getting a lot of compression with this modification so now I am brainstorming to figure out what is optimum for me. I have been studying some face-on video of his swings to see how low his hands really were dynamically at impact. My analysis is revealing that the fulcrum of his hands at the top center of his right palm is located at the centroid (Center of Gravity) of the triangle formed by his knees and crotch. www.mathopenref.com/trianglecentroid.html

I am calling this point in space the Rocktroid Optimal Compression Zone (ROCZ). With my Pitching Wedge bent to a 60 degree lie angle my ROCZ is currently 24" off the ground...not sure what is optimal, but the 5 degree reduction in lie angle definitely is producing more compression. My knee to crotch is 12 inches and my knees are 12" apart at impact giving an equilateral triangle with a ROCZ 6.9" under my crotch. I was wondering if you could get a tape measure out and give me your knee to crotch, knee to knee, crotch to top center of right palm, and top center of right palm to the ground...with your body positioned as if you were hitting a golf ball at your impact position...is with your pitching wedge so I know where your ROCZ is. We can do a Skype if you are not sure what I am asking for based on these words and the image of Ben Hogan that I posted showing the ROCZ.
Thanks,
Doug

Doug Burke wrote:


Doug,

You are a way better scorer in golf than I am. Does the clubhead passing your hands so soon at 14 sec point or so concern you or are you strictly ballflight oriented?
Is it flippy to you? Do you hit quite high shots? Some people seem quite concerned with flipping do you prioritize pretty looks or pretty ballflight?

At Mid Downswing Ben Hogan has more cup in his left wrist than me allowing him to have greater than a 90 degree angle between his left arm and clubshaft. Getting more cup in my left wrist is something I am working on, but I am not sure how much more of that I want because there is a compromise between power and dispersion with this tweak. I am more concerned about repeatability than power especially with a wedge. I have no concern about how "pretty" I look relative to Ben Hogan, but I do love the mechanics of his swing. I have a totally different body so optimizing what I have is what my focus is...I will never be Ben, but I can be the best me I can be.


I start releasing the club sooner than Ben Hogan so I have enough time to square the club by impact. He may have been stronger...could be that I am taller with a different body than his....who knows....I like what I am doing with my mechanics here and I think I can improve further.


My camera has a rolling shutter so the forward shaft lean is not real, but my hand position is. You can see my right hand and fully wound right forearm with the Ulna and Radius crossed ready to lay the hammer down.


You can see how square I keep the clubhead well past impact which allows me to hit the ball very straight. This was a standard wedge shot for me at about medium height. I can vary the height around with my release through impact. I am not sure what shot Ben Hogan was hitting here so it is hard to compare exactly.


You can see here how tightly I pack my upper left arm bicep into the side of my rib cage to maintain stability into the follow through. There is seperation in Ben Hogan's upper left arm relative to mine.


I get a fuller follow through because I like the feeling of that and believe that is an important key in ensuring my entire swing stays in balance throughout.

Doug, remember Ben was double jointed. makes a difference to those downswing angles.

Loving just following along.

Tim,
This is good stuff. I was wondering what the specs on your clubs are and how flat you think I should go. Here are the specs on my clubs at the moment along with some comments about the specs. Have you ever found anything that quantifies how bending an iron hosel away from the target (or parallel to the target line) to decrease the loft effectively opens the clubface and bending the hosel toward the target to increase the loft of the iron effectively closes the clubface relative to the target line while changing the lie angle by bending the hosel toward the target line (or perpendicular to the target line) to make it more upright or away from the target line to make it more flat does nothing to open or close the clubface although you need to make an adjustment in your swing mechanics to get the sole flat at impact as you explained.
Thanks,
Doug

Timothy Goynes wrote:

Zico,
You have your long irons flatter than mine, but it looks like the short irons are about the same. Do you have any rationale for having your 4 iron 6 degrees flatter than the MP67 Mizuno standard, but your wedge only 3 degrees flatter than the MP67 Mizuno Standard? What is your wrist to floor measurements and height so I can extrapolate your specs to mine? Have you tried the new MP69s...they look pretty nice, but my grooves still have some life in them so I am sticking with what I have for now.
Thanks,
Doug

quote="Zico Martin" post=34344]Well said Tim.

My MP67 4 iron is 54* - my 5 iron is 55* = all that way up to my PW at 60*

I can't even look at a modern iron with a std lie angle let alone hit one...

ZM.[/quote]

Doug, no real rationale as such. I have my own bending machine so I can tinker a bit. I liked the look & feel of a 6* flat 4 iron, I didn't really like the look of a very flat PW, it just looked too flat. I've bent them to suit my eye more than anything else. I'm only 5ft 6" so I knew I needed to be flatter than std. I started off thinking that I would just go 5* flat because I wouldn't really notice 2* - thereafter I just trusted my eyes.

I really like the 68's....but concluded that they alone would not make me a better iron player - that part is down to me.

ZM.

Doug, here are my specs.

2i - lie 56*, loft 20*, length 39.5"
3i - lie 57*, loft 23*, length 39"
4i - lie 57.5*, loft 26*, length 38.5"
5i - lie 58*, loft 29*, length 38"
6i - lie 58*, loft 32*, length 37.5"
7i - lie 58.5*, loft 36*, length 37"
8i - lie 59*, loft 40*, length 36.5"
9i - lie 59.5*, loft 45*, length 36"
PW - lie 60*, loft 49*, length 35.75"

Bradley is more "up" on the science of why flatter lies promote slower face closure. The only reason I can think of is that the CG of the clubhead is moved farther away from the hosel.

All I know for sure is that it WORKS. And it's made my swing better for it!

Weaker lofts have also been a treat. My set feels like it's built from the green to the tee, rather than the other way around. I also do not have to carry a gap wedge.

Zico,
I have figured out a rationale for what you are doing. You probably like having your hands the same height off the ground at address...makes it more likely they will be consistent at impact also. I did an experiment today hitting my 4i and PW attempting to take the exact same swing with the 4i as the wedge. I noticed that my short irons were much much better with the 5 degrees flatter lie angle and not as crisp with my longer irons. Your post got me thinking. Using the same swing that I hit the wedge solid, I noticed that I was getting a little bit of a heel grab with the 4i. I did some simple calculations on a spreadsheet to see how to get my clubs the same height off of the ground at the butt end of the golf club. If you give me your length and lie angle for all your irons I can calculate the height to see how close your "look and feel" method is. I am going to get my clubs bent as in this table and see if I can get it so I can take the same swing with all of my clubs and get the same results. I am loving my short irons right now....roasting them for the fourth day in a row.

Agreed on the clubs as long as we are talking blades like the MP67s. Yup, you cannot buy a game...it is all in your hands as you say. I have went from the MP14 to MP33 to MP68 and they were all nice blades. I have hit the MP67s and they felt nice also but nice enough to get me off my MP33s at the time. I went with the MP68s when my MP33 grooves could not be sharpened any more and were wore out.

I hit the T11 wedges and those are nice. I am thinking of getting those in the conforming grooves because my T10 grooves put a ridiculous amount of spin and I can't get at back pins when the greens are a little soft because I can pull it back 30 feet at times.
Thanks,
Doug

Zico Martin wrote:

Tim,
I did a quick calculation on your irons specs to calcluate the height off of the ground of the butt end of the club. Your long irons are quite a bit different than your short irons so that will promote more wrist uncocking on the long irons than the short irons which might be a source of some extra dispersion...may be alright too if you like them that way...maybe my idea might help you a little. I also did a spreadsheet optimizing the lie angle for a constant height off the ground if you want to try it.

Thanks,
Doug

Timothy Goynes wrote:

Festus,
I hit a whole bucket of wedges today. I love those flat lie angles...might not hit my Driver anymore now. Hit a few hard to give you some nice sound for your headset....here is one of those...let me know if the sound is pure enough or if you need it purer.
Thanks,
Doug

Doug, I never really thought about the 'hands to ground' relationship before, but I suppose it makes sense.

ZM.

Zico,
I’ll take that as an endorsement of my rationale for having the lie angle bent as you did…club specs effect how you hit the ball and it would be nice if the same swing mechanics produced the same results for each and every one of your clubs. There is only one place in the History of Golf…here in the optimum thread…where you can find trigonometry calculations using a constant butt of the club height off the ground and the length of the club to calculate what the lie angle should be so that might explain why you never really thought about it before. Didn’t you find that interesting that my calculations were spot on with the 51 degree lie angle of Hogan’s 1 iron? I would be interested in knowing the results on an experiment of varying your 4 iron and wedge flatter in one degree increments to see if you there is a more optimum spot for you…seems like it would be an easy and inexpensive experiment for you since you have the bending machine.
Thanks,
Doug
Zico Martin wrote:

Dariusz,
Should have included you in this also...Did you give the ROCZ idea any thought? is an amazing geometric relationship between his crotch, knees and hands at impact. Val thought it would be interesting to get your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
Rock
[quote="Zico Martin" post=34535]Doug, I never really thought about the 'hands to ground' relationship before, but I suppose it makes sense.Doug Burke wrote:

Doug I'm impressed you getting it. His sternum is the upper pivot point and his left leg hamstring angle is the reason he keeps the shallow attack and allows him to Push the club through the impact to finish. The triangle points are. Back of two heels and sternoclaicular joint with the two hands moving In and down through up arch to the left being pushed from the rear......also 36.5 inches is my hand to ground perfect number for all clubs and. My hands to ball distance is half that 18 inches for optimum arch out away from my center mass and back of heels giving me 2 to the 8 power more energy to get real tech. So 3 D wise I'm covered as Hogan understood be my optimum Math. Also it's the BACK of the knees not front that are key to your point and your point is right and very valid just take it to the center top point of the body mass in the sternum. Rock you are impressing me now and while it is your journey at least you have a friend waiting at the end to talk to. I know have one who sees the simplicity that is basic levers and math based on how we best work. Let's Skype Friday night about 8 our time text me bud. Great job. Wile others may not understand this will help them find the bridge they want to cross. Great job. I like the name. It's better than Leecommotion that is for sure. Lol

Lee